Members

[Roger de Coverly]

The paragraph below is an extract from a much longer piece in the latest ChessMoves.

Being a federation also means acting in partnership. It's a two-way street. The ECF has to represent the wishes of the majority of those who make up the federation. The federation members in turn need to recognise the commonality of interest with the federation as a whole, i.e. the wish to support and develop chess at every level and in its various forms. If the ECF acts as if the wishes of its constituent members are different from and secondary to its own desires, it is failing to see that the ECF is the summation of its members' desires. I feel just as strongly, however, that local organisations need to recognise that they and the ECF are partners in the same endeavour, not opponents

When the term "member" is used, does this mean?
(a) chess organisations such as county associations, leagues and Congresses which are the existing membership base
(b) chess organisations such as chess clubs which are not currently (for the most part) ECF members
(c) individual players and others, some of whom are already members of the ECF and some of whom are just customers for ECF's services and those of other chess providers.

Is the ECF, by its individual membership proposals and requirements for per head fees, trying to prevent local chess organisations and itself having a customer relationship with players? It's withdrawing the facility for a league to enable all the players in a league to have published grades (for enough games played) subject only to the chess organisation becoming an ECF member and paying a membership fee.

[David Robertson]

In the main, but far from universally adopted, a federation is an assembly of organised entities wherein the political rules allow some freedom of action to the separate federal units. By the same token, an association or union is an assembly of individuals: ie members, who voluntarily combine for a common purpose and to an agreed set of rules and arrangements. Hence it would be unusual to speak of a federation of individuals. Alas, for clarity, it is not uncommon to speak of an association of entities (Football Association) nor a union of entities (European Union)

I should add that the extract from 'ChessMoves' cited above seems very confused, and not just terminologically, even though the spirit of what is intended comes through clearly enough

[Roger de Coverly]

By the same token, an association or union is an assembly of individuals: ie members,

The name English Chess Association is already spoken for. I know who it used to belong to, but if Kingpin or Private Eye are to be believed, it was sold on some years ago.

[Andrew Farthing]

The article in ChessMoves is an opinion piece rather than an academic treatise, but there is a definition of "members" earlier in the article:

The English Chess Federation, while legally a “company limited by guarantee”, is an organisation comprising a large number of members – both individuals and groups, such as county associations, leagues, congresses and regional chess unions.

Given that I was addressing the issue of the ECF as a reflection of the collective will of its members, my intention was to refer to those with voting rights. In the case of individual direct members, these are currently limited to nominated representatives for each membershp category.

The point to remember is that even those who are not individual members of the ECF, i.e. "customers" in Roger's terminology, will be part of at least one of the non-individual ECF members (e.g. their county association), through which they have the opportunity to express their views.

Currently, based on voting rights, the ECF is a "federation" which is a reasonably close match to the definition given by David Robertson.

[Roger de Coverly]

Given that I was addressing the issue of the ECF as a reflection of the collective will of its members, my intention was to refer to those with voting rights. In the case of individual direct members, these are currently limited to nominated representatives for each membershp category.

The current voting rights of individuals are a joke. Just eight votes out of a couple of hundred or more.

I think it's important that if membership plans involve a retention of the current Council structure and voting rights, that every player and organisation should be clear on this. The Board of three years ago didn't get as far as writing a draft of a membership scheme but we were led to believe by some of its advocates that it would have involved sweeping away the rights and privileges of Council members. Indeed it might have gone as far as abolition of the federal structure with leagues, counties and Congresses reduced to the roles of service providers. By contrast the Northern Counties membership scheme gave no voting rights to those players who elected to pay per head, all the voting rights being retained by the existing leagues, counties and Congresses.

The problems as I see them are:-
(1) The introduction of per head funding and an implicit license to play scheme works against any chess organisation that has an objective of recruiting new and returning players or retaining infrequent players.
(2) There are a number of membership levels for individuals which require payment and give derisory voting rights. Chess Organisations on the other hand, remain members of the Federation but have all the votes and supply none of the financing.